Food Rules For Buddhist Monks

by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Chapter 8: Pacittiya 4. The Food Chapter

Many of the rules in this chapter classify food into two groups:
bhojana (consumables) and khadiniya (chewables). Scholars
usually translate the two as "softer food" and "harder food," although
the hardness and softness of a particular food have little to do
with the category it belongs to. A translation closer to the essence
of each category would be "staple food" and "non-staple food."

The distinction between the two is important, for it is often
the deciding factor between what is and is not an offense. Note,
however, that the term staple here covers only what was considered
staple in the time of the Buddha. Bread, pasta, and potatoes, which
are staples in the West, were not always staples in India at that
time, and so do not always fit into this category.

Staple foods are consistently defined as five sorts of
foods, although the precise definitions of the first two are a matter
of controversy.

1) Cooked grains. The Vibhanga defines this as seven types
of cooked grain, but there is disagreement on the identity of some
of the seven. They are sali (BD translates this as rice;
the Thais, wheat); vihi (BD again has rice, and the Thais
agree); yava (BD has barley; the Thais, glutinous rice);
godhuma (BD has wheat; the Thais, tares); kangu (both
BD and the Thais identify this as millet or sorghum); varaka
(BD doesn't identify this beyond saying that it is a bean; the Thais
are probably right in identifying it as Job's tears); and kudrusaka
(the Commentary states that this term covers all forms of grain
that come from grass — rye would be an example in the West). Whatever
the precise definitions of these terms, though, we could argue from
the Great Standards that any grain cooked as a staple — including
corn (maize) and oats — would fit into this category.

2) Kummasa. The Commentary says that this is a staple
confection made out of yava, but doesn't describe it in any
detail aside from saying that if the kummasa is made out
of any of the other grains or mung beans, it doesn't count as a
staple food. References to kummasa in the Canon show that
it was a very common staple that could form a rudimentary meal in
and of itself and would spoil if left overnight.

3) Sattu. Any of the seven types of grain dried or roasted
and pounded into meal.

4) Fish. The flesh of any animal living in the sea.

5) Meat. The flesh of any biped or quadruped, except for
that which is unallowable. The following types of meat are un-allowable:
the flesh of human beings, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions,
tigers, leopards, bears, and hyenas (panthers). Human beings, horses,
and elephants were regarded as too noble to be used as food. The
other types of meat were forbidden either on grounds that they were
repulsive ("People were offended and annoyed and spread it about,
'How can these Sakyan contemplatives eat dog meat? Dogs are loathsome,
disgusting'") or dangerous (bhikkhus, smelling of lion's flesh,
went into the jungle; the lions there were offended and annoyed
and attacked them).

To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; to eat any of the other
unallowable types, a dukkata (Mv.VI.23.9-15). If a bhikkhu is uncertain
as to the identity of any meat presented to him, he incurs a dukkata
if he doesn't ask the donor what it is (Mv.VI.23.9).

Fish or meat, even if of an allowable kind, is unallowable if
raw. Thus bhikkhus may not eat steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on
the half-shell, etc. (Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2
only when one is possessed by non-human beings (!)) Furthermore,
even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if
the bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed
specifically for the purpose of feeding bhikkhus (Mv.VI.31.14).

Non-staple foods are defined according to context:

a) in Pacittiyas 35-38: every edible outside
of staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines (see
below).

b) in Pacittiya 40: every edible outside
of staple foods, water, and toothwood.

The Commentary to Pacittiya 37 lists the
following items as non-staple foods: flour and confections made
of flour (cakes, bread and pasta made without eggs would be classed
here); also, roots, tubers (this would include potatoes), lotus
roots, sprouts, stems, bark, leaves, flowers, fruits, nuts, seed-meal,
seeds, and resins that are made into food. Any of these items made
into medicines, though, would not be classed as a non-staple food.

The Commentary also makes reference to the fact that some societies
use roots, tubers, confections made out of flour, etc., as staple
foods, but it nowhere suggests that the definition of staple food
be altered to fit the society in which one is living. Thus in the
West we are left with a somewhat zig-zag line separating what are
and are not staple foods for the purposes of the rules: Meal pounded
from grain is a staple; flour ground from grain is not. Bread made
with oat meal, corn meal, wheat germ, etc., would thus be a staple;
bread made without any grain meal or eggs (see below) would not.
The same holds true for pastries, noodles, and pasta.

This means that it would be possible for a donor to provide bhikkhus
with a full, strictly vegetarian meal that would include absolutely
no staple foods. The wise policy in such a case, though, would be
to treat the meal as if it did contain staple foods with reference
to the rules (Pacittiya 33 &
35) that aim at saving face for the donor.

Conjey, the watery rice porridge or gruel commonly drunk before
almsround in the time of the Buddha, is classed differently according
to context. If it is so thick that it cannot be drunk and must be
eaten with a spoon, it is regarded as a staple food (Mv.VI.25.7;
Pacittiya 33). "Drinking conjey" is classed
as a non-staple food under Pacittiyas 35-38 &
40, whereas it is considered as neither a staple
nor a non-staple food under Pacittiya 41. The Commentary notes,
though, that if drinking conjey has bits of meat or fish "larger
than lettuce seeds" floating in it, it is a staple food.

Milk and curds are classed as "finer staple foods" under
Pacittiya 39. In other contexts they fit under
the definition of non-staple food.

All other dairy products — except for fresh butter and ghee when
used as tonics (see NP 23) — are non-staple foods.

Eggs are not mentioned in the Vibhanga or Khandhakas. Presumably
they come under meat. If so, raw eggs are unallowable; and bread,
pastries, noodles, and pasta made with eggs are a staple food.

In addition to staple and non-staple foods, the Vibhanga to the
rules in this chapter mentions three other classes of edibles: juice
drinks, the five tonics, and medicines.

Juice drinks include the freshly squeezed juice of sugar
cane, lotus root, all fruits except grain, all leaves except cooked
vegetables, and all flowers except liquorice (Mv.VI.35.6). According
to the Commentary, the juice must be strained, and may be warmed
by sunlight but not heated over a fire. (What category boiled juice
would fit under, the Commentary does not say. The Vinaya Mukha maintains
that it would fit under sugar in the five tonics.)

In discussing the Great Standards, the Commentary says that grain
is a "great fruit," and thus the juice of any one of nine large
fruits — palmyra fruit, coconut, jackfruit, breadfruit, bottle gourd,
white gourd, muskmelon, watermelon, and squash — would fall under
the same class as the juice of grain: i.e., as a non-staple food
and not a juice drink. From this judgment, many Communities infer
that the juice of any large fruit, such as pineapple or grapefruit,
would also be classed as a non-staple food.

The Commentary notes further that if a bhikkhu himself makes
a juice drink from fruit, etc., he has received, it counts as a
non-staple food and must be consumed before noon.

The five tonics are discussed in detail under NP 23.

Medicines. According to the Mahavagga (VI.3.1-8), any
items in the six following categories that, by themselves, are not
used as staple or non-staple food are medicines: roots, astringent
decoctions, leaves, fruits, resins, and salts. For example, under
fruits: Oranges and apples are not medicines, but pepper, nutmeg,
and cardamom are. Most modern medicines would fit under the category
of salts. Using the Great Standards, we can say that any edible
that is used as a medicine but does not fit under the categories
of staple or non-staple food, juice drinks, or the five tonics,
would fit here.

Keeping and consuming. Each of the four basic classes of edibles
— food, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines — has its "life
span," the period during which it may be kept and consumed. Food
may be kept and consumed until noon of the day it is received; juice
drinks, until dawn of the following day; the five tonics, until
dawn of the seventh day after they are received; and medicines,
throughout one's life.

Edibles made from ingredients that have different life spans
— e.g., salted beef, honeyed cough syrup, sugared orange juice —
have the same life span as the ingredient with the shortest life
span. Thus salted beef is treated as beef, honeyed cough syrup as
honey, and sugared orange juice as orange juice (Mv.VI.40.3).

Tonics and medicines, such as sugar and salt, received today
may be eaten mixed with food or juice drinks received today, but
not with food or juice drinks received on a later day. Medicine,
such as salt, tea, or cocoa, received at any time may be eaten mixed
with any of the five tonics on any day of the tonic's life span
(Mv.VI.40.3).

31.A bhikkhu who is
not ill may eat one meal at a public alms center. Should he eat
more than that, it is to be confessed.

"Now at that time a certain guild had prepared food at a public
alms center not far from Savatthi. Some group-of-six bhikkhus, dressing
in the morning, taking their bowls and robes, entered Savatthi for
alms but, after not getting any almsfood, went to the public alms
center. The people there said, 'At last the reverend ones have come,'
and respectfully waited on them. Then on the second day and the
third day, the group-of-six bhikkhus, dressing in the morning, taking
their bowls and robes, entered Savatthi for alms but, after not
getting any almsfood went to the public alms center and ate. The
thought occurred to them, 'Why should we bother going back to the
monastery? Tomorrow we'll have to come right back here.'

"So staying on and on right there, they ate the food of the public
alms center. The members of other sects fled the place. People were
offended and annoyed and spread it about: 'How can these Sakyan
contemplatives stay on and on, eating the food of the public alms
center? The food at the alms center isn't meant just for them; it's
meant for absolutely everybody.'"

A public alms center is a place where all comers are offered
as much food as they want, free of charge. Soup kitchens and shelters
for the homeless, if they are run in this way, would fit under this
rule. A meal is defined as one that includes any of the five
staple foods. Not ill in this rule is defined as being able
to leave the alms center.

The origin story seems to indicate that this rule is directed
against staying on and eating day after day in the alms center.
The Commentary, though, maintains that it forbids eating in the
center two days running, without making any mention of whether the
bhikkhu stays on at the center or not. To eat one day in a center
belonging to one family (or group) and the next day in a center
belonging to another group, it says, entails no penalty.

Non-offenses. According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense
in taking a meal on the second day —

if it does not include any of the five staple foods;
if one is invited by the proprietors;
if one is ill;
if the food is specifically intended for bhikkhus (%); or
if the center determines the amount of food the recipients may take,
rather than allowing them to take as much as they want (%). The
reason for this last allowance is that if the owners of the center
were unhappy with having a bhikkhu eat there, they could give him
very little or nothing at all.

Also, there is no offense in taking a second meal when "coming
or going," which in the context of the origin story seems to mean
that one may take a second meal if one simply leaves the center
and then comes back. The Commentary, though, interprets this phrase
as meaning "coming or going on a journey," and even here it says
a meal should not be taken from the center two days running unless
there are dangers, such as floods or robbers, that prevent one from
continuing on one's way.

Summary:Eating food obtained from the same public
alms center two days running, unless one is too ill to leave the
center, is a pacittiya offense.

32.A group meal, except
on the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions
are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of
making robes, a time of going on a journey, a time of embarking
on a boat, an extraordinary occasion, a time when the meal is supplied
by contemplatives. These are the proper occasions here.

This is a rule dating from Devadatta's efforts to create a schism
in the Sangha.

"Now at that time Devadatta, his gain and honor lost, ate his
meals having asked and asked for them among households with his
friends. (Here the Commentary elaborates: 'Thinking, "Don't let
my group fall apart," he provided for his friends by eating his
meals among householders together with his friends, having asked
for them thus: "You give food to one bhikkhu. You give food to two."')
People were offended and annoyed and spread it about: 'How can these
Sakyan contemplatives eat their meals having asked and asked for
them among households? Who isn't fond of well-prepared things? Who
doesn't like sweet things?'"

Group meals. The Vibhanga defines a group meal
as one consisting of any of the five types of staple foods to which
four or more bhikkhus are invited. The Parivara (VI.2) adds that
this rule covers any group meal that the donor offers at his/her
own initiative, as well as any that results from a bhikkhu's requesting
it.

In the early days of the Buddha's career, donors who wished to
invite bhikkhus to their homes for a meal would invite an entire
Community. Later, as Communities grew in size and there were times
of scarcity in which donors were unable to invite entire Communities
(Cv.VI.21.1), the Buddha allowed:

1) designated meals, at which a certain number of bhikkhus
were to be served. The donors would ask the Community official in
charge of meal distribution (bhattuddesaka) to designate
so-and-so many bhikkhus "from the Community" to receive their meals.
Bhikkhus would be sent on a rotating basis to these meals as they
occurred.

2) invitational meals, to which specific bhikkhus were
invited.

3) lot meals, for which the bhikkhus receiving the meals
were to be chosen by lot; and

4) periodic meals, i.e., meals offered at regular intervals,
such as every day or every uposatha day, to which bhikkhus were
to be sent on a rotating basis, as with designated meals. The bhattuddesaka
was to supervise the drawing of lots and keep track of the various
rotating schedules. (The explanations of these various types of
meal come partly from the Commentary. For a fuller explanation,
see Appendix III.)

The no-offense clauses to this rule state that in addition to
the exceptions mentioned in the rule, which we will discuss below,
this rule does not apply to lot meals or periodic meals. The Commentary
concludes from this — and on the surface it seems reasonable enough
— that the rule thus applies to meals to which the entire Community
is invited and to invitational meals. (Buddhaghosa reports that
there was disagreement among Vinaya authorities as to whether or
not it applies to designated meals — more on this point below.)

The Commentary's conclusion, though, creates a problem when lay
people want to invite Communities of more than three bhikkhus to
their homes for a meal. Perhaps this problem is what induced the
Commentary to interpret the Vibhanga's definition of group meal
as meaning one in which the invitations specifically mention the
word "meal," "food," or the type of meal or food to be served. ("Come
to my house for breakfast tomorrow." "I know you don't often get
a chance to eat Indian food, so I'm inviting you all over for chappatties
and curry.") This interpretation has led to the custom of phrasing
invitations to eat "in the morning" or to eat "before noon," so
that groups of four or more bhikkhus may be invited without breaking
this rule.

The Buddha's purposes for establishing this rule, though, are
listed at Cv.VII.3.13 as follows: "For the restraint of evil-minded
individuals, for the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, so that those
with evil desires will not split the Community by (forming) a faction,
and out of compassion for householders."

The Commentary's definition of group meal accomplishes
none of the purposes: The custom of phrasing invitations to avoid
the word "food" or "meal" does nothing to restrain evil-minded individuals,
etc., and it actually creates trouble for lay people who do not
know the custom, a point well-illustrated by the Commentary itself
in an entertaining section on how to deal with a person whose invitation
contains the word "meal." After getting the run-around from the
bhattuddesaka — who apparently was not allowed to tell him in any
straightforward way how to phrase his invitation and so gave him
a long series of hints — the poor man returns to his friends and
makes a cryptic statement that the A/Sub-commentary translates as:
"There are a lot of words that have to be spoken in this business
of making an invitation. What's the use of them all?"

Two other arguments against the Commentary's interpretation are:

1) The Vibhanga's definition of invited in this rule is
repeated word-for-word under Pacittiyas 33 &
46. If the factor of mentioning "food" or "meal," etc., is necessary
for there to be an offense under this rule, it would have to be
necessary under those rules as well, a proposal that makes no sense
in their context, and that no one has ever suggested.

2) In the origin stories of two of the reformulations of the
rule, bhikkhus refuse invitations on the grounds that they would
break the rule against a group meal, and yet the invitations make
no mention of "food" or "meal."

An alternative interpretation. To find an alternative
to the Commentary's explanation, we have to go back to the origin
stories leading to the reformulations of the rule, where we find
an interesting point: The invitations rejected by scrupulous bhikkhus
on the grounds that they would break the rule all deal with "invitational"
meals. In one of them, a naked ascetic invites a group of bhikkhus
to an invitational meal and is rejected on the grounds that it would
constitute a group meal. He then goes to the Buddha and — after
complaining that he should not be subjected to such treatment —
rephrases the invitation, this time inviting the entire Community.
This suggests that he felt an invitation of this sort would not
constitute a group meal.

His reasoning has its grounds in the Vinaya itself: Throughout
the Vibhanga and Khandhakas, the word "group" is used to refer to
any set of bhikkhus not forming a complete Community and yet acting
as an independent unit. This may be why the category of Community
meal was not mentioned in the no-offense clauses: The arrangers
of the Vibhanga may have felt that no mention was necessary, in
that the term "group" meal automatically excluded Community meals.

Similar considerations suggest that designated meals may also
be exempted from this rule even though they are not mentioned in
the no-offense clauses. Invitations to such meals were customarily
worded as requests for so-and-so many bhikkhus "from the Community,"
and thus — as a type of Community meal — they would by definition
not be invitations to a "group" meal.

Since invitations to lot meals and periodic meals did not customarily
make reference to the Community, the Vibhanga arrangers did have
to make mention of those types of meals in order to exempt them.

We are left with a rule that applies exclusively to invitations
to specific groups — not Communities — of four or more bhikkhus
regardless of whether or not the invitation mentions the word "food"
or "meal."

The rule in this form has the virtue of fulfilling the express
purposes mentioned for it in the Cullavagga: It would prevent evil-minded
bhikkhus and lay people from trying to exert influence over specific
groups in the Community by arranging meals especially for them;
and in the same way, it would prevent people with evil desires from
creating a split in the Community. (Since the smallest faction that
can create a split in the Community is four bhikkhus, the maximum
number allowed at a group meal is three.)

The rule in this form would also contribute to the comfort of
well-behaved bhikkhus in that invitations to meals would not be
pre-empted by factions; and it would protect householders from being
prey to the maneuverings of bhikkhus who would try to arrange for
such meals as part of their strategy to create and maintain such
factions. (Anyone who has lived in a traditional Buddhist country
knows only too well the influence of sweet-talking bhikkhus over
unsuspecting or low-minded lay people. This sort of thing neither
started nor ended with Devadatta.)

Since Community meals and designated meals would not form an
opening for such machinations, there would be no reason to limit
them to groups of three if lay people want to invite groups larger
than that.

Thus the point at issue is not whether the invitation makes mention
of food or meals, but whether it specifies the individual bhikkhus
to be invited. If it specifies more than three individual bhikkhus
— either naming them outright or saying such things as "Ven. X and
four of his friends," or "The five of you," etc. — the meal would
count as a group meal.

Effort. To accept an invitation to a group meal entails
a dukkata; and to eat it, regardless of whether one realizes that
it is a group meal, a pacittiya. Whether or not the bhikkhus actually
eat together is not an issue. If they receive their food at the
same invitation to a group meal but then split up and eat it separately,
they still incur the full penalty.

Non-offenses. The Vibhanga defines the proper occasions
mentioned in the rule — during which bhikkhus may eat a group meal
without committing an offense — as follows:

A time of giving cloth is when the robe-season and kathina
privileges are in effect.

A time of making robes is any time the bhikkhus are making
robes.

A time of journeying is any time the bhikkhus are about
to go, are going, or have just returned from a journey of at least
half a league (about five miles, or eight kilometers).

A time of embarking on a boat is any time the bhikkhus
are about to embark, are embarking, or are disembarking from a boat.
No minimum distance for the boat journey is specified.

A time of illness is, in its minimal terms, a time when
the bhikkhus' feet are split (and they cannot go for alms).

An extraordinary occasion is one in which there are so
many bhikkhus in proportion to the donors giving alms that three
bhikkhus going for alms can obtain enough food to support themselves,
but not enough to support a fourth.

A meal supplied by contemplatives is one provided by a
person who has taken on the state of religious wanderer. This the
Commentary explains as meaning not only those ordained in other
sects, but also one's own co-religionists (bhikkhus and samaneras)
as well. This interpretation, though, would completely negate the
effect of the rule. The word the Vibhanga uses for religious wanderer
(paribbajaka) refers throughout the Canon to members of other
sects and never to Buddhist bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, samaneras, etc.
We may safely assume that it carries the same range of meaning here.
This exemption, as its origin story makes clear, was formulated
to promote good relations between bhikkhus and members of other
sects.

Aside from the proper occasions, there is no offense —

if groups of three or less eat a meal to which they have been
specifically invited;
if the meal to which a group of four or more is invited does not
include any of the five kinds of staple food; or
if bhikkhus, having walked separately for alms, eat assembled as
a group.

No mention is made of whether or not bhikkhus can go for alms
in groups of four or more, as is the custom at present in the rural
areas of many Buddhist countries. From the various stories of bhikkhus
and bhikkhunis on almsround that appear in the Canon, it seems that
the custom was for them to go individually. Pacittiya 42 mentions
bhikkhus going for alms as a pair, but the Vibhanga notes that they
might receive less food that way than when going individually. Apparently,
going as a group would not have made much sense in their cultural
context.

As mentioned above, the Vibhanga also states that there is no
offense for groups of any number eating periodic meals or lot meals;
and as we have already stated, our interpretation would explicitly
extend this exemption to cover Community and designated meals as
well.

Summary:Eating a meal to which four or more individual
bhikkhus have been specifically invited — except on special occasions
— is a pacittiya offense.

3.An out-of-turn meal,
except on the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper
occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth (the
robe season), a time of making robes. These are the proper occasions
here.

"Now at that time a succession of meals of sumptuous foods had
been arranged in Vesali. The thought occurred to a certain poor
laborer: 'The way these people respectfully present meals isn't
a bad thing at all. What if I were to present a meal?' So he went
to Kirapatika and said, 'Master, I want to prepare a meal for the
Community of bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head. Please give me
my wage.' Now Kirapatika had faith and confidence in the Buddha,
so he gave the laborer more than his wage.

"Then the laborer went to the Blessed One, paid respect, sat
to one side, and said, 'May the Lord together with the Community
of bhikkhus consent to a meal with me tomorrow.'

"'You should be warned, friend, that the Community of bhikkhus
is large.'

"'Let it be large, Lord. I have prepared plenty of jujube fruits.
The beverages will be full of jujube mixture.'

"So the Blessed One consented by remaining silent... The bhikkhus
heard, '...The beverages will be full of jujube mixture,' so right
before the time of the meal, they went for alms and ate. People
heard, 'They say that the poor laborer has invited the Community
of bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head,' so they took a great deal
of staple and non-staple foods to the laborer...(When the time came
for the meal) the Blessed One went to the poor laborer's house and
sat on the appointed seat together with the Community of bhikkhus.
Then the poor laborer served the bhikkhus in the dining area. The
bhikkhus said, 'Just a little, friend. Give just a little.'

"'Don't take so little, thinking that I'm just a poor laborer.
I have prepared plenty of staple and non-staple food. Take as much
as you want.'

"'That's not the reason why we are taking so little, friend.
Simply that we went for alms and ate just before the time for the
meal: That's why we are taking so little.'

"The poor laborer was offended and annoyed and spread it about:
'How can these reverend ones eat elsewhere when they were invited
by me? Am I not capable of giving them as much as they want?'"

Object. The term out-of-turn meal covers two sorts
of situations: A bhikkhu has been invited to a meal consisting of
any of the five staple foods but then either (1) goes elsewhere
and eats another meal consisting of any of the five staple foods
at the same time as the meal to which he was originally invited;
or (2) eats a staple food right before going to the meal, as in
the origin story.

Effort. The Vibhanga states that there is a dukkata for
accepting — with the thought of eating it — food that will constitute
an out-of-turn meal, and a pacittiya for every mouthful one eats.
Whether or not one perceives it as an out-of-turn meal, the offense
is the same.

Proper times. The special occasions when one may accept
and eat an out-of-turn meal are defined as follows:

A time of illness is when one is unable to eat enough
at one sitting and so has to eat two or more times in a morning.

The times of giving cloth and making robes are
defined as in the preceding rule. The reason for exempting them
is that in the days of the Buddha, cloth and thread were hard to
come by, and donors who wanted to offer them usually did so in conjunction
with a meal. If these exemptions were not made, a bhikkhu making
a robe, having already been invited to one meal, could not go to
another meal beforehand to receive the cloth or thread offered there.

There is reason to believe that these three exemptions apply
to out-of-turn meals of the type mentioned in the origin story:
i.e., a bhikkhu is allowed in these cases to go to another meal
before attending the meal to which he was originally invited.

Sharing invitations. As for the sort of out-of-turn meal
where a bhikkhu invited to one meal goes to another meal instead,
the Buddha in a story ancillary to this rule gives permission to
share invitations: If a bhikkhu has received an invitation, he may
give it to another bhikkhu or novice by saying, "I give my expectation
of a meal to so-and-so." He is then allowed to eat elsewhere.

The Commentary regards the act of sharing as a mere formality:
One may even make the statement outside of the other bhikkhu's presence
without his knowing anything about it. This, though, is very unlikely
to satisfy the original donor. The wise policy in this case would
be to make the statement in the presence of the other bhikkhu —
"I give my expectation of a meal to you" — making reasonably sure
that he is willing and able to go.

The Vinaya Mukha adds, though, that if the donors of the meal
have specifically invited one to a meal — i.e., one is going to
an invitational meal rather than a designated meal (see
Pacittiya 32) — it would be bad manners to
share the invitation without making an agreement with the donors
first.

Non-offenses. In addition to mentioning the "proper times"
during which one may eat an out-of-turn meal, the no-offense clauses
state that there is no penalty for a bhikkhu who, on receiving an
invitation, states, "I will go for alms." This statement the Commentary
explains as a refusal, and interprets the allowance as meaning that
if a bhikkhu refuses an invitation, he is still allowed to eat another
meal at the time for which the invitation was made. If the Vibhanga
arrangers did mean this statement to be a refusal, though, it is
probably for the sake of those bhikkhus who hold to the dhutanga
vow of going for alms and not accepting invitations. If a bhikkhu
who does not hold to such a vow refuses an invitation for a time
for which he has no prior commitment, it is considered very bad
manners. And if he were to later accept an invitation for a meal
served at the same time as the meal he earlier refused, it would
be extremely bad manners.

An alternative explanation for the statement, "I will go for
alms," is that there is no offense if the bhikkhu lets the donor
know beforehand that he will go for alms before the meal: He can
have his alms meal first and then go to receive the meal offered
by the donor. This would make room for the custom common in village
monasteries throughout Theravadin countries, where invitations are
usually for the late-morning meal, and bhikkhus are expected to
have an early-morning alms meal before that. (If this interpretation
does not hold, most village bhikkhus would then probably claim a
perpetual "time of illness" as their exemption from this rule.)

Meals that do not include any of the five staple foods are also
exempted from this rule. Thus if one is invited to a meal and takes
a snack of milk, drinking conjey, fruit, etc., beforehand, this
would not constitute an offense — although to be in keeping with
the spirit of the rule, one should not take so much as to spoil
one's appetite for the meal.

There is no offense if, when invited to more than one meal on
the same day, one goes to them in the order in which one received
the invitations (but see Pacittiya 35); if
one puts the food from the various invitations together in one's
bowl and eats them at the same time; or, if invited by an entire
village, one goes to eat anywhere in the village.

The Commentary, in discussing this point, mentions a situation
that often occurs where there are very few bhikkhus in proportion
to the number of donors: A bhikkhu has been invited to a meal, but
before he leaves the monastery to go to the meal, another group
of donors arrives with food to place in his bowl; or after he arrives
at the home of the original donor, another group of donors arrives
with still more food. According to the Commentary he may accept
the food of these various donors as long as he is careful — when
he finally gets around to eating — to take his first mouthful from
the food offered by the original donor.

Meals offered on a periodic basis and those for which bhikkhus
are chosen by lot do not count as out-of-turn meals under this rule.
The Canon offers no explanation for these last two exemptions, but
the Commentary to Cullavagga VI shows that the custom was for many
families to prepare such meals on the same day. This exemption would
thus seem to provide for the situation where there are fewer bhikkhus
than there are families preparing these meals: One bhikkhu would
be allowed to accept more than one meal so that no family's meal
would go without a recipient.

A passage in the Mahavagga (VI.25.7) implies that if the donor
of the meal provides a pre-meal snack of thick conjey — or by extension
any other staple food — there would be no offense in eating it.
And the Commentary notes that if the donor gives explicit permission
to eat another meal before the one he/she is providing, there would
be no offense in doing so.

Summary:Eating a meal before going to another meal
to which one was invited, or accepting an invitation to one meal
and eating elsewhere instead, is a pacittiya offense except when
one is ill or at the time of giving cloth or making robes.

34.In case a bhikkhu
arriving at a family residence is presented with cakes or cooked
grain-meal, he may accept two or three bowlfuls if he so desires.
If he should accept more than that, it is to be confessed. Having
accepted the two-or-three bowlfuls and having taken them from there,
he is to share them among the bhikkhus. This is the proper course
here.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from abusing
a donor's generosity and good faith.

The origin story deals with two separate cases. In the first,
a woman named Kana is about to return to her husband's house after
visiting her parents. Her mother, thinking, "How can one go empty-handed?"
bakes some cakes. A bhikkhu comes, and the mother — being a faithful
lay follower — presents him with the cakes and then bakes some more
to replace them. The bhikkhu, meanwhile, has informed another bhikkhu
that cakes are baking at Kana's house, so the second bhikkhu goes
and receives the second batch of cakes. This process keeps up until
Kana's husband tires of waiting for her and takes another woman
for his wife. The Commentary notes, reasonably enough, that Kana
developed a long-term grudge against Buddhism as a result of this
incident.

In the second case, a man is preparing provisions for a journey
by caravan. A similar series of events takes place, and he eventually
ends up tagging along behind the caravan and getting robbed. People
become offended and annoyed as usual, and spread it about, "How
can these Sakyan contemplatives accept food without knowing moderation?"

Object. In the context of this rule, the Vibhanga defines
cakes so as to cover anything prepared as a present, and
cooked grain-meal(sattu) so as to cover anything
prepared as provisions for a journey. The word journey here
refers to journeys that the donors are planning to take themselves.
This rule thus does not cover gifts of food that donors have prepared
to give to a bhikkhu for a journey he is planning to take.

The Vinaya Mukha, using the Great Standards, infers from the
Vibhanga's definitions for cakes and cooked grain-meal that any
food prepared in large quantities for sale or for a party, banquet,
or reception, etc., should be covered by this rule as well.

Protocol. If the bhikkhu is presented with such things
— i.e., invited to take as much as he likes — he may take no more
than two or three bowlfuls. To take more than that would entail
a pacittiya. Returning from there, he should tell every bhikkhu
he sees, "I accepted two or three bowlfuls over there. Don't you
accept anything there." He incurs a dukkata if, seeing a bhikkhu,
he does not tell him, while there is a dukkata for the other bhikkhu
if, having been told, he accepts anything at the place in question.
According to the Commentary, if the first bhikkhu accepts two bowlfuls,
he should tell the second bhikkhu to accept no more than one, and
all other bhikkhus he meets that they should not accept anything.
If he accepts only one bowlful, he should follow a similar process
so that, all-in-all, the bhikkhus accept a total of no more than
three.

The Commentary states further that a bhikkhu receiving two or
three bowlfuls may keep one bowlful and do as he likes with it,
but must share the remainder among an entire Community, i.e., not
just among his friends. A bhikkhu receiving only one bowlful may
do with it as he likes .

Non-offenses. The Vibhanga states that there is no offense
in taking more than three bowlfuls of items not intended as presents
or provisions, of items left over from preparing presents or provisions,
or of provisions remaining when plans for a journey have been abandoned.
As explained above, the Vinaya Mukha would include items prepared
for sale or for parties, etc., under the word "provisions" here.

The Vibhanga also says that there is no penalty in accepting
more than three bowlfuls from relatives or from those who have offered
an invitation. Here the Commentary states that if such people give
more than three bowlfuls outright, one may accept them without penalty,
but if they tell one to take as much as one likes from items prepared
as presents or provisions, the proper thing to do is to take only
two or three bowlfuls.

Also, there is no offense in having more than three bowlfuls
of provisions purchased with one's own resources.

Finally, the Vibhanga says that there is no offense in taking
extra for the sake of another. Neither the Commentary nor Sub-commentary
discusses this point, but the only way it can make sense in the
context of this rule is if it refers to cases where the bhikkhu
takes extra for the sake of another not on his own initiative, but
because the donor asks him to.

Summary:Accepting more than three bowlfuls of food
that the donors prepared for their own use as presents or as provisions
for a journey is a pacittiya offense.

35.Should any bhikkhu,
having eaten and turned down an offer (of further food), chew or
consume staple or non-staple food that is not left over, it is to
be confessed.

"Now at that time a certain Brahman, having invited bhikkhus,
gave them a meal. The bhikkhus, having eaten and turned down an
offer of further food, went to their relatives' families. Some ate
there, some left having received alms.

"Then the Brahman said to his neighbors, 'Masters, the bhikkhus
have been satisfied by me. Come and I will satisfy you as well.'

"They said, 'Master, how will you satisfy us? Even those you
invited came to our homes. Some ate there, some left having received
alms.'

"So the Brahman was offended and annoyed and spread it about,
'How can their reverences, having eaten in my home, eat elsewhere?
Am I not capable of giving as much as they want?'"

When a donor invited bhikkhus for a meal, the custom in the time
of the Buddha was for him/her to offer food to the bhikkhus repeatedly
while they ate, and to stop only when the supplies of food were
exhausted or the bhikkhus refused any further offers. (This custom
is still widespread in Sri Lanka and Burma.) Thus it was often a
matter of pride among donors that their supplies were not easily
exhausted and that they could continue offering food until the bhikkhus
were completely satisfied and could eat no more. Now where there
is pride, there is bound to be wounded pride: A donor could easily
feel insulted if bhikkhus refused further offers of food, finished
their meal, and then went to eat someplace else.

As the origin story shows, this rule is designed to protect generous
donors from being insulted by the bhikkhus in this way. It is also
designed to protect bhikkhus from being forced to go hungry by stingy
or impoverished donors. If the donor stops offering food before
the bhikkhus have refused further offers — or if what he/she offers
is not substantial food at all (see the discussion under Pacittiya
8 for a historic case of this sort) — the bhikkhus, after finishing
their meal, are free to accept food elsewhere that morning if they
are still hungry.

Having eaten(bhuttavi), according to the Vibhanga,
means having eaten any of the five staple foods, "even as much as
a blade of grass." On the surface, this could mean one of two things:
having taken one's first bite of a meal, or having finished a meal
— even the smallest possible one. The Commentary adopts the first
interpretation, but in doing so creates two problems:

1) If having eaten means having taken one's first bite of a meal,
then the word serves no purpose in the rule, because the first factor
of "having turned down an offer of further food" is "the bhikkhu
is eating," and as the Commentary itself notes, if one is eating
then one has already taken one's first bite of the meal. It concludes
that the word "having eaten," both in the rule and in the Vibhanga,
is completely superfluous.

2) A more practical problem coming from the Commentary's interpretation
is that if one turns down an offer of extra food when one already
has more than enough food in one's bowl but has yet to finish one's
meal, one cannot continue eating. The Commentary tries to get around
this predicament by introducing an additional factor: As long as
one does not move from the spot on which one is sitting, one may
continue eating. This, though, creates further problems: Suppose
a bhikkhu has turned down an offer of further food but has yet to
finish his meal. If there is then some compelling reason for him
to move from the spot on which he is sitting — for example, the
donor spills a pot of hot soup, or ants come crawling into his robes
— then he cannot finish his meal even if the donor begs him to continue
eating.

The Sub-commentary gets around the first problem by interpreting
"having eaten" as "having finished a meal," which fits better with
the origin story and with the linguistic usage of the Vibhanga itself.
(There is a separate term, asana, for one who is in process
of eating a meal without yet having finished it.) The author of
the Sub-commentary doesn't realize, though, that in adopting this
interpretation he is also eliminating the need for the Commentary's
extra factor concerning moving from one's spot. If the factor is
unnecessary, and there is no basis for it in the Canon, there would
seem to be no reason to adopt it. Thus the Commentary's factor,
and not the wording of the rule, is what is superfluous. So we can
say that "having eaten" means having finished one's meal, and that
the question of having moved from one's spot doesn't enter into
the rule.

As the Commentary itself notes when discussing the term asana,
the point where one finishes eating is determined in one of two
ways:

a) There is no food left in one's bowl, hand, or mouth; or
b) one has decided that one has had enough for that particular meal.

Thus, as long as the bhikkhu has not yet finished the donor's
meal, he is free to refuse, accept, and eat food as he likes. In
other words, if he refuses an offer of further food, he may continue
eating what is left in his bowl. If he initially refuses an offer
of further food but then gives in and accepts it after being pressured
by the donor, he may eat what he accepts without penalty. Or if
he feels, for example, that he has enough vegetables but would like
more rice, he may refuse an offer of vegetables yet accept and eat
an offer of rice that follows it.

But once he no longer has any food in his bowl, hand or mouth
and/or has decided that he has had enough for that particular meal,
he fulfills the factor of "having eaten" under this rule. If he
refused an offer of further food before finishing the meal, he may
not for the remainder of the day eat any staple or non-staple foods
that are not leftovers.

Turning down an offer for further food. The Vibhanga defines
this as an act with five factors:

1) The bhikkhu is eating.
2) There is further staple food.
3) The donor is standing within hatthapasa (1.25 meters)
of the bhikkhu.
4) He/she offers the food.
5) The bhikkhu turns it down.

The Commentary adds that if the bhikkhu has finished eating before
the further food is offered, factor (1) is not fulfilled, so if
he turns down the food he does not fall under the terms of this
rule. Similarly, if the food in factor (2) is not a staple food
— e.g., if it is fruit, chocolates, or cheese — or if it is staple
food of a sort unallowable for a bhikkhu to eat — e.g., it has been
offered as a result of a bhikkhu's claiming a superior human state
or corrupting a family (see Sanghadisesa 13), or it is made of human
flesh or snake meat, etc. — the factor is not fulfilled. Since none
of the texts specify that the donor under factor (3) must be unordained,
a bhikkhu offering food to a fellow bhikkhu would apparently fulfill
this factor as well. Thus this rule would apply not only to meals
offered by lay donors, but also to food handed out by bhikkhus and
samaneras in a monastery.

Factor (5) is fulfilled by any refusal made by word or gesture.

Staple & non-staple food. Staple food, here, follows
the standard definition. Non-staple food, in the context of this
rule, refers to all edibles except for the five staple foods, juice
drinks, the five tonics, medicines, and water.

Leftover food is of two sorts: left over from a sick bhikkhu's
meal, and formally "made" leftover by a bhikkhu who is not sick.
In the latter case, the formal act has seven factors:

1) The food is allowable.
2) Bhikkhu X has formally received it.
3) He offers it to Bhikkhu Y.
4) He remains within hatthapasa of Bhikkhu Y.
5) Bhikkhu Y has finished his meal.
6) Bhikkhu Y has not yet gotten up from the seat where he has finished
his meal and refused further food; and
7) he says, "I have had enough of all this."

The Commentary notes that any bhikkhu except Bhikkhu Y may eat
the food formally made left over in this way.

Effort. If a bhikkhu who, having eaten and turned down
an offer for further food, is presented with staple or non-staple
that is not left over — e.g., a snack of milk or ice cream — he
incurs a dukkata if he accepts it with the thought of eating it,
and a pacittiya for every mouthful he eats.

Perception is not a factor here. Whether or not the bhikkhu realizes
that the food is not left over is irrelevant to the offense. This
point is what led to the following rule.

Non-offenses. There is no offense —

if a bhikkhu accepts the food and takes it for the sake of another,

if he accepts and eats left-over food, or

if, having a reason, he later in the day accepts and consumes
juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicine. According to
the Commentary, "having a reason" means, in the case of juice drinks,
being thirsty; and in the case of the tonics and medicine, suffering
from an illness that they are meant to assuage. (As we have noted
under NP 23, these illnesses include hunger and fatigue as well
as medical disorders.) In other words, a bhikkhu under the circumstances
covered by this rule may not take these items as food. The Vibhanga
says that if he accepts them with the idea of taking them as food,
he incurs a dukkata; while the Commentary imposes a further dukkata
for every mouthful he eats.

According to the Mahavagga (VI.14, VI.9.2, VI.20.4; V.32), this
rule is relaxed during times of famine so that a bhikkhu who has
eaten and turned down an offer for further food may later in the
day consume food that is not left over:

if it was accepted before he went to his meal,

if it is brought back from a place where a meal has been offered,
or

if it has been taken from a wilderness area or a pond. The texts
offer no explanation for this last stipulation. Perhaps, during
famines, these were places where most people would be foraging for
food.

Summary:Eating staple or non-staple food that is not
left-over, after having earlier in the day finished a meal during
which one turned down an offer to eat further staple food, is a
pacittiya offense.

36.Should any bhikkhu,
knowingly and wishing to find fault, present staple or non-staple
food to a bhikkhu who has eaten and turned down an offer (for further
food), saying, "Here, bhikkhu, chew or consume this" — when it has
been eaten, it is to be confessed.

"Now at that time two bhikkhus were traveling through the Kosalan
districts on their way to Savatthi. One of them indulged in bad
habits; the second one said, 'Don't do that, my friend. It isn't
proper.' The first one developed a grudge. Eventually, they arrived
at Savatthi.

"Now at that time one of the guilds in Savatthi gave a meal to
the Community. The second bhikkhu finished his meal, having turned
down an offer for further food. The bhikkhu with the grudge, having
gone to his relatives and bringing back alms food, went to where
the second bhikkhu was staying and on arrival said, 'Here, friend,
have some of this.'

"'No thanks, my friend. I'm full.'

"'Really, this is delicious alms food. Have some.'

"So the second bhikkhu, being pressured by the first, ate some
of it. Then the bhikkhu with the grudge said to him, 'You think
I'm the one to be reprimanded when you eat food that
isn't left over, after finishing your meal and turning down an offer
for further food?'

"'Shouldn't you have told me?'

"'Shouldn't you have asked?'"

This rule covers cases in which one bhikkhu, knowingly and wishing
to find fault, offers food to another bhikkhu in order to trick
him into committing an offense under the preceding rule. The full
offense here requires a full set of five factors:

1) Object: staple or non-staple food.
2) Effort: One gives the food to a bhikkhu who has turned
down an offer of further food, as under the previous rule.
3) Perception: One knows that he has turned down an offer
of further food.
4) Intention: One wishes to find fault with him.
5) Result: He accepts the food and eats from it.

Only three of these factors — object, intention, and result —
require further explanation.

Object.Staple food, here, follows the standard
definition. Non-staple food, in the context of this rule,
refers to all edibles except for the five staple foods, juice drinks,
the five tonics, medicines, and water. Whether or not the food is
actually left over is not a factor in determining the offense here.
The important point lies in the perception: As long as one assumes
the food to be not left over, one is subject to a penalty if the
other bhikkhu accepts it. If one assumes the food to be left over,
one's actions would not fit under this rule.

Intention.Wishing to find fault, according to
the Vibhanga, means planning to accuse, criticize or shame the bhikkhu
after one has succeeded in tricking him into breaking the preceding
rule.

Result. Bhikkhu X, in giving food to Bhikkhu Y "knowingly
and wishing to find fault," incurs a dukkata when Y accepts the
food with the thought of eating it, and a pacittiya when Y has stopped
eating from it. If X then accuses or shames Y, he is to be treated
under Pacittiya 2 as well. As for Y, the Commentary notes, he doesn't
escape the penalty under the preceding rule even though he has been
tricked into the offense. In other words, both bhikkhus in the origin
story were right: The bhikkhu with a grudge should have told the
second bhikkhu, while the second bhikkhu should have asked.

Non-offenses. There is no offense —

if one gives the other bhikkhu left-over food,
if the other bhikkhu takes the food for the sake of another, or
if one gives him juice drinks, any of the five tonics, medicines,
or water.

None of the texts make any mention of a bhikkhu trying to trick
another bhikkhu into committing an offense under any rule other
than Pacittiya 35; and apparently, a bhikkhu
who tricks a fellow bhikkhu into committing an offense under
Pacittiya 35 with no desire to blame or shame
him, but simply for the perverse satisfaction of seeing him commit
the offense, would incur no penalty under this or any other rule.
There is no escaping the fact, though, that such actions carry their
own inherent penalty in terms of one's spiritual maturity. This
is one of those cases where we have to look past the particulars
of the rule to the general principle underlying it: that one should
not deliberately trick another person into breaking a rule or vow
that he or she has pledged to uphold.

Summary:Deliberately tricking another bhikkhu into
breaking the preceding rule, in hopes of finding fault with him,
is a pacittiya offense.

37.Should any bhikkhu
chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it
is to be confessed.

Object.Staple food here follows the standard definition
given in the preface to this chapter. Non-staple food refers
to all edibles except for the five staple foods, juice drinks, the
five tonics, medicines, and water.

The wrong time. The Vibhanga defines the wrong time
as from after noon until dawn of the following day. (See Appendix
I for a discussion of how dawn is defined.) Noon is reckoned as
the moment the sun reaches its zenith, rather than by the clock
— in other words, by local rather than standard or daylight-savings
time. Thus, for example, a bhikkhu who is offered food while traveling
in an airplane should check the position of the sun in order to
determine whether or not he may accept and eat it. Some have argued
that one may eat after noon if one has begun one's meal before noon,
but the Commentary says explicitly that this is not the case.

Effort. The verbs chew and consume in the
Pali of this rule are the verbs normally paired, respectively, with
non-staple and staple foods. They both mean "to eat," but the question
arises as to whether eating means going down the throat or entering
the mouth. This becomes an issue, for instance, when a bhikkhu has
a piece of food stuck in his teeth from his morning meal and swallows
it after noon.

The Commentary generally defines eating as going down the throat,
but a passage from the Cullavagga (V.25) suggests otherwise. In
it, the Buddha allows a ruminator who brings up food to his mouth
at the "wrong time" to swallow it, and ends with the statement:
"But food that has been bought out from the mouth should not be
taken back in. Whoever should take it in is to be dealt with according
to the rule (i.e., this rule and the following one)." This suggests,
then, that eating is technically defined as "taking into the mouth."

Offenses. A bhikkhu who, intending to eat it, accepts
staple or non-staple food at the wrong time incurs a dukkata. If
he eats staple or non-staple food at the wrong time — regardless
of whether he accepted it at the right or wrong time — he incurs
a pacittiya for every mouthful he eats. As for juice drinks, the
five tonics, and medicine, there is a dukkata for accepting them
to be used as food at the wrong time, and another dukkata for eating
them as food at the wrong time.

Perception is not a factor here. Thus, a bhikkhu who eats food
in the wrong time unknowingly — e.g., assuming that noon has not
passed when it actually has, or that the food belongs to one of
the other classes of edibles when it actually doesn't — commits
an offense all the same.

No exception is granted to an ill bhikkhu, because there are
a number of edibles an ill bhikkhu may consume at the wrong time
without involving an offense: juice drinks, the five tonics, and
medicines. Also, there is an allowance in the Mahavagga (I.14.7)
for a bhikkhu who has taken a purgative to take strained meat broth,
strained rice broth, or strained green gram (mung bean) broth at
any time of the day. Using the Great Standards, we may say that
a bhikkhu who has a similar illness or worse may take these broths
at any time; and some have argued that other bean broths — such
as soybean milk — would fit under the category of green gram broth
as well. However, unlike the case with the five tonics, mere hunger
or fatigue would not seem to count as sufficient reasons for taking
any of these substances in the "wrong time."

A substance termed lonasoviraka (or lonasociraka)
is allowed (Mv.VI.16.3) in the wrong time as a medicine for ill
bhikkhus and, when mixed with water, as a beverage for bhikkhus
who are not ill. No one makes it anymore, but the recipe for it
in the Commentary to Parajika 3 bears some resemblance to the recipe
for miso (fermented soybean paste). Some have argued, using
the Great Standards, that the special allowance for this substance
should extend to miso as well, but this is a controversial point.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, miso is not used to cure
diseases in adults even in China, which would be the place to look
for its use as a medicine. However, even if the allowance does apply
to miso, taking miso broth as food in the wrong time would entail
a dukkata.

Non-offenses. There is no offense if, having a reason,
one consumes juice drinks, any of the five tonics, medicine, or
water after noon or before dawn.

Summary:Eating staple or non-staple food in the period
after noon until the next dawn is a pacittiya offense.

38.Should any bhikkhu
chew or consume stored-up staple or non-staple food, it is to be
confessed.

This is one of the few rules where the original instigator was
an arahant: Ven. Belatthasisa, Ven. Ananda's preceptor and formerly
the head of the 1,000 ascetics who attained Awakening on hearing
the Fire Sermon. The origin story here reports that he made a practice
of keeping left-over rice from his alms-round, drying it, and then
moistening it to eat on a later day. As a result, he only rarely
had to go out for alms. Even though he was doing this out of frugality
rather than greed, the Buddha still rebuked him. The story doesn't
give the precise reasons for the rebuke. Perhaps it was because
he saw that such behavior would open the way for bhikkhus to avoid
going on almsround, thus depriving themselves of the excellent opportunity
that alms-going provides for reflecting on their dependency on others
and on the human condition in general; and depriving the laity of
the benefits that come from daily contact with the bhikkhus and
the opportunity to practice generosity of the most basic sort every
day. Although frugality may be a virtue, there are times when other
considerations supercede it.

At any rate, the Buddha showed great foresight in formulating
this rule. Over the centuries, whenever bhikkhus have lived in Communities
where vast stores of food were kept — such as the great Buddhist
universities in India — bhikkhus have tended to grow lax in their
practice, and a gulf of misunderstanding and suspicion has come
to separate them from the laity.

Object.Staple food here, as usual, follows the
standard definition given in the preface to this chapter. Non-staple
food here includes all edibles except for the five staples,
juice drinks, the five tonics, medicine, and water.

Stored-up means formally accepted by a bhikkhu (see
Pacittiya 40, below) on one day and eaten on
the next or a later day. The boundary between one day and the next
is dawn.

According to the Commentary, though, if a bhikkhu accepts food
today but then gives it to an unordained person, having abandoned
possession of it in his mind, and then the person happens to present
it again to that bhikkhu or to another bhikkhu on a following day,
it does not count as stored-up under this rule. If, however, the
bhikkhu does not abandon possession of the food in his mind, and
the unordained person presents it again the following day, it still
counts as stored-up even if the bhikkhu did not say with word or
gesture that the food was to be kept and presented to him again.

Since this factor is difficult to determine with absolute certainty
in cases where food is left over after being presented to a number
of bhikkhus — there is hardly any way of being sure that they have
all renounced possession of the leftovers — many Communities ignore
the Commentary's allowance and do not permit their members to accept
any food at all that they formally received on a previous day.

The story of the Second Council (Cv.XII.2.8) shows that this
rule also forbids storing such medicines as salt (or pepper, vinegar,
etc.) to add to any bland food one might receive on a later day.
(See the discussion preceding Pacittiya 31
for more details on this subject.)

Effort. The Vibhanga says that there is a dukkata "if
one accepts it, thinking, 'I will eat it'" — the Commentary interprets
this as taking or accepting, with the purpose of eating, food that
has been stored up — and a pacittiya for every mouthful one eats.

Perception is not a factor here. Thus, a bhikkhu who eats stored-up
food commits an offense regardless of whether or not he perceives
it as stored-up. This means —

1) If Bhikkhu X receives the food on one day and, without renouncing
possession of it, lets someone else put it away, and Bhikkhu Y eats
it on a later day, Y commits an offense all the same, regardless
of whether or not he knows that the food was stored-up.

2) One should be careful that there are no traces of any edible
received yesterday on a utensil from which one will eat food today.
The duties a student should perform for his preceptor (upajjhaya-vatta)
(Mv.I.25.9) show that the custom in the Buddha's time was to rinse
out one's bowl before going for alms. The Commentary suggests a
method for making sure that one's bowl is clean: Run a finger along
the inside of the bowl while it is dry. If there is enough food
residue or dust in the bowl for the finger to make a mark in it,
clean the bowl again before use.

Derived offenses. If a bhikkhu accepts or takes, for the
sake of food, juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicine
that has been stored overnight, there is a dukkata in the taking,
and another dukkata for every mouthful he eats. The Commentary,
though, asserts that when a bhikkhu takes, not for food but simply
to assuage his thirst, a juice drink stored overnight, he incurs
a pacittiya for every swallow he drinks.

It seems strange that drinking the juice simply as juice would
entail a stronger penalty than taking it as food, and as there is
no basis anywhere in the Canon for the Commentary's assertion, there
seems to be no reason to adopt it. Mv.VI.40.3 states clearly that
juice drinks, taken for any reason, are allowable at any time on
the day they are accepted, but not after the dawn of the following
day. No specific penalty is given for taking them on the following
day, but we can infer from the Vibhanga to this rule that the penalty
would be a dukkata.

Non-offenses. There is no offense in the mere act of storing
food. A bhikkhu going on a journey with an unordained person may
thus carry the latter's food — while the latter carries the bhikkhu's
food — without committing an offense.

There is also no offense in telling an unordained person to store
food that has not been formally received. For example, if donors
simply leave food at a bhikkhu's residence without formally presenting
it, the bhikkhu may tell a novice or lay person to take it and put
it away for a later day. If the food is then presented to the bhikkhu
on a later day, he may eat it that day without penalty.

However, food may be stored in a monastery only in a building
formally agreed on for the purpose (Mv.VI.33.2). Since bhikkhus
may not use such a building as a dwelling place (Mv.VI.33.4), a
bhikkhu who has food stored in his dwelling would incur a dukkata.
He may, however, store medicines or the five tonics in his dwelling
without penalty.

If a bhikkhu accepts, sets aside, and then eats any of the four
kinds of edibles all within their permitted time periods — e.g.,
he receives bread in the morning, sets it aside, and then eats it
before that noon; or receives honey today, sets it aside, and takes
it as a tonic tomorrow — there is no offense.

This rule makes no exceptions for a bhikkhu who is ill, although
the rule as a whole is suspended when there is scarcity and famine,
and reinstated when the scarcity and famine have passed. (Mv.VI.17-20;
Mv.VI.32).

Summary:Eating food that a bhikkhu — oneself or another
— formally received on a previous day is a pacittiya offense.

39.There are these
finer staple foods, i.e., ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses,
fish, meat, milk, and curds. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill,
having asked for finer staple foods such as these for his own sake,
then eat them, it is to be confessed.

The Vibhanga defines finer staple foods as any of the
nine foods mentioned in the rule, either on their own or mixed with
other foods. Thus milk and milk-mixed-with-cereal would both be
finer staple foods. The ancient commentators, though, must have
objected to including some of these items under the category of
staple food (bhojana), so we have the Commentary defining
"finer staple foods" as any of the substances mentioned in the rule
mixed with any one of the seven types of grain. Thus, it would say,
milk with cereal would be a finer food, but milk on its own would
not.

As we have seen, though, the Vibhanga defines its terms to fit
with the situation covered by each particular rule and is not always
consistent from one rule to another. Thus, since the Vibhanga is
not at fault for being inconsistent here, there is no reason to
follow the Commentary in deviating from it. The rule means what
it says: It covers each of the foods mentioned in it, whether pure
or mixed with other ingredients.

The first five of these finer foods are discussed in detail under
NP 23. Fish and meat are discussed in the preface
to this chapter. Milk and curds here refers to milk and curds
from animals whose flesh is allowable. The Sub-commentary, in discussing
this point, maintains that tiger's milk, bear's milk, etc., are
not unallowable, simply that they would not come under this rule.
This is an interesting idea, but was included probably just to wake
up sleepy students in the back of the room.

According to the Commentary, any food other than these nine finer
foods is grounds for a dukkata under Sekhiya 37.

Effort. A bhikkhu who is not ill, requesting the foods
for his own use, incurs a dukkata for every request he makes, a
dukkata for accepting the food, and a pacittiya for every mouthful
he eats.

Not ill means that one is able to fare comfortably without
these foods. None of the texts go into detail on this point, but
ill probably means something more than simply being hungry,
for there is a separate allowance under Sekhiya 37 for a bhikkhu
who is hungry to ask for rice and bean curry, which was the basic
diet of the day, and the Commentary extends the allowance to cover
all foods not covered by this rule. Here ill probably refers
to any form of fatigue, weakness, or malnutrition that comes specifically
from lacking any of the foods mentioned in the rule.

The Commentary adds that if a bhikkhu asks for one kind of finer
food but receives another kind instead, he incurs the dukkata for
asking, but no penalty for accepting and eating what he gets. It
also notes that when a bhikkhu asks a lay person for any of the
finer foods, and the lay person makes a donation of money to the
bhikkhu's steward to buy that food, then once the food is bought
it comes under this rule all the same.

Non-offenses. There is no offense:

in asking for food — any kind of food — when one is ill, and
then eating it, even if one has recovered in the meantime;
in eating food that has been requested for the sake of an ill bhikkhu
and is left over after his meal;
in asking from relatives;
in asking from those who have offered an invitation to ask;
in asking for the sake of another person; or
in asking that food be bought with one's own resources.

Also, according to the Mendaka Allowance (Mv.VI.34.21), a bhikkhu
going on a journey through a wilderness area where alms food is
difficult to obtain may search for provisions of husked rice, kidney
beans, green gram (mung beans), salt, sugar, oil, and ghee for the
journey. The Commentary says, though, that he should first wait
for spontaneous offerings of these provisions from people who learn
of his plans for the journey. If these aren't forthcoming, he should
ask from his relatives or from those who have given him an invitation
to ask, or else see what he gets on his almsround. (This last alternative
apparently applies to the salt, sugar, oil, and ghee; people ordinarily
would not be giving uncooked rice, beans, or green gram for alms.)
Only when these avenues fail should he ask from people who are unrelated
to him and have not given an invitation to ask. Furthermore, he
should ask for no more than the journey will require.

None of the texts mention any permission for the bhikkhu, after
he has searched for the provisions, to store them longer than usual
or to cook them in any way. Apparently, they expect him to arrange
for an unordained person — or people — to accept the provisions
and be responsible for their storage and preparation while on the
road.

Summary:Eating finer foods, after having asked for
them for one's own sake — except when ill — is a pacittiya offense.

40.Should any bhikkhu
take into his mouth an edible that has not been given — except for
water and tooth-cleaning sticks (%) — it is to be confessed.

"Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, living entirely off of what
was thrown away, was staying in a cemetery. Not wanting to receive
gifts from people, he himself took the offerings for the dead —
left in cemeteries, under trees, and on thresholds — and ate them.
People were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'How can this
bhikkhu himself take our offerings for the dead and eat them? He's
robust, this bhikkhu. He's strong. Perhaps he feeds on human flesh.'"

Object. An edible is whatever is fit to eat, and
includes all four classes of food and medicine: staple and non-staple
foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine.

Exceptions.Water, according to the Commentary,
includes ice, hailstones, and snow as well. Whether such things
as boiled water, bottled water, and man-made ice should also come
under this exception is a controversial point, because such things
are no longer in their natural state and in some instances carry
a price. The texts offer no specific guidance here, so this is an
area where the wise policy is to follow the dictates of one's Community.
If one happens to belong to a Community that allows one to take
these items when they are not formally given, one should still be
careful to take them only when they are clearly intended for one's
use or the Community's use in instances where they carry a price.

Tooth-cleaning sticks, as used in the time of the Buddha,
were semi-edible. They were sticks of soft wood, like balsam, cut
four to eight inches long, chewed until they were reduced to fiber
and spat out. People in India still use tooth-cleaning sticks of
this sort even today.

Here again there is a controversy as to whether toothpaste comes
under this exception as well. On the one hand it fits in with the
pattern for tooth-cleaning sticks — it is semi-edible and not intended
to be swallowed — but on the other hand it contains substances,
such as mineral salts, that the Canon classes as medicines (Mv.VI.8).
This second consideration would seem to override the first, since
it is a question of following what is explicitly laid out in the
Canon, rather than of applying the Great Standards. Thus the wise
policy would seem to be to regard it as a medicine that has to be
formally given before it can be used, and not as coming under this
exception.

The act of giving food and other edibles, as described
in the Vibhanga, has three factors:

1) The donor (an unordained person) is standing within reach
(one hatthapasa, or 1.25 meters) of the bhikkhu.

2) He/she gives the item with the body (e.g., the hand), with
something in contact with the body (e.g., a spoon), or by means
of letting go. According to the Commentary, letting go means
releasing from the body or something in contact with the body —
e.g., dropping from the hand or a spoon — and refers to such cases
as when a donor drops or tosses something into a bhikkhu's bowl
or hands without directly or indirectly making contact.

3) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something
in contact with the body (e.g., his bowl, a piece of cloth).

There is a tradition in Thailand that a bhikkhu should never
receive an offering from a woman hand-to-hand. Either she must offer
it with something in contact with her body (e.g., a tray) or the
bhikkhu must accept it with something in contact with his body:
an alms bowl, a tray, a piece of cloth, etc. Apparently this tradition
arose as a means of protecting a sexually aroused bhikkhu from committing
an offense under Sanghadisesa 2, or from the embarrassment that
might arise if, say, yesterday he was not aroused and so could take
something straight from her hand, while today he is and so can't.
Many Thai eight-precept nuns, even though they don't have any precepts
corresponding to Sanghadisesa 2, follow a reciprocal tradition of
not receiving anything hand-to-hand from a man. Neither of these
traditions is mentioned in the Canon or the commentaries, nor are
they observed by Sri Lankan or Burmese bhikkhus or nuns.

A special allowance in the Cullavagga (V.26) states that if food
accidentally falls while being offered, a bhikkhu may pick it up
himself and eat it without committing an offense.

Effort. If a bhikkhu realizes that food is not given or
improperly given, he incurs a dukkata if he takes it with the intention
of eating it. As for the bhikkhu who thinks that it is properly
given when it isn't, the Vibhanga does not say whether he incurs
a penalty in taking it with the intention of eating it or not. The
Commentary says explicitly that he doesn't. In either case, though,
the Vibhanga states that the bhikkhu incurs a pacittiya for every
mouthful he eats. Thus perception is not a mitigating factor when
determining the full offense under this rule.

Non-offenses. There is an allowance (Mv.VI.17.8-9; Mv.VI.32)
that in times of scarcity and famine a bhikkhu may pick up fallen
fruit, take it to an unordained person, place it on the ground,
and have it formally "given" without committing an offense. At times
when this allowance is not in effect, though, a bhikkhu who — with
the intention of eating it — picks up an edible he knows has not
been given may not later make it allowable by formally "receiving"
it from an unordained person. Whether other bhikkhus may receive
it and make use of it, though, is a controversial point discussed
in the Commentary in a treatise separate from its explanation of
the Vibhanga (see below).

In the Mahavagga (VI.14.6), the Buddha gives permission for a
bhikkhu bitten by a snake to make an antidote of urine, excrement
(burned in fire), ashes, and soil. If there is no unordained person
present who can or will make these things allowable, the bhikkhu
may take and prepare them himself, and then eat them without incurring
a penalty under this rule. The Commentary adds that if he cuts a
tree under these circumstances to burn it, or digs the earth to
get soil, he is exempt from the rules dealing with those actions
as well.

Controversial points from the Commentary. As mentioned
above, the Commentary's discussion of this rule includes a treatise
separate from its explanation of the Vibhanga, dealing with controversial
points for which the Canon gives unclear answers or no answers at
all. Since the treatise is a compilation of the opinions of various
teachers and does not pretend to explain the meaning or intent of
the Buddha's words — and since the Buddha warned bhikkhus against
making up their own rules (NP 15.1.2) — the opinions expressed in
the treatise are not necessarily normative. Many Communities do
not accept them, or are selective in choosing what they do and do
not accept. Here we will give a summary of some of the Commentary's
opinions that have influenced practices found in some, if not all,
Communities of bhikkhus at present.

1. Taking into the mouth is defined as going down the
throat. As we have already noted under Pacittiya
37, though, this definition has no justification in canonical
usage. The Sub-commentary attempts to justify the Commentary's stand
here by defining "mouth" (literally, the door of the face) as the
larynx, i.e., the back door rather than the front door to the mouth,
but again this is not supported by the Canon. Sekhiya 41 — "I will
not open the door of my face when the mouthful has yet to be brought
to it" — shows decisively that this term refers to the lips and
not to the larynx. "Taking into the mouth" thus means taking in
through the lips.

2. Food. Pond water so muddy that it leaves a scum on
the hand or on the mouth is considered to be food, and so must be
given before it can be drunk. The same holds true with water into
which so many leaves or flowers have fallen that their taste is
discernible in the water. For some reason, though, water that has
been scented with flowers need not be given, and the same is true
with water taken from a stream or river no matter how muddy. (There
is a belief still current in India and other parts of Asia that
flowing water is inherently clean.) Although leaves and flowers
technically do count as edibles — they are classed as non-staple
foods or medicines, depending on one's purpose in eating them —
the idea of counting mud and scum as edibles seems to be taking
the concept of edible a little too far.

If toothwood is chewed for the sake of its juice, it must first
be given. Even if one is chewing it for the sake of cleaning the
teeth, but accidentally swallows the juice, one has committed an
offense all the same. These two opinions have no basis in the Canon,
since intention is not a factor in determining the offense under
this rule.

A long section of this treatise discusses what to do if things
that are not given get into food that has been given. It concludes
that they must either be removed from the food, or the food must
be given again. If the items "not given" are edibles, this seems
reasonable enough, but the Commentary extends the concept to include
such things as dust, dirty rain water, rust from a knife, beads
of sweat dropping from one's brow, etc. Again, this seems to be
taking the concept too far, for the Vibhanga states clearly that
the rule covers only those things generally considered as fit to
eat.

3. Giving. The Commentary redefines the act of giving,
expanding its factors to five:

(a) The item is such that a man of average stature can lift it.
(b) The donor is within reach (1.25 m.) of the bhikkhu.
(c) He/she makes a gesture of offering the food.
(d) The donor is a celestial being, a human being, or a common animal.
(e) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something
in contact with the body.

Factor (a) was included apparently to discourage the practice,
still found in many places, of getting two or more men to present
a table of food to a bhikkhu by lifting the entire table at once.
The inclusion of this factor, though, has given rise to the assumption
that the donor must lift the food a certain distance before handing
it to the bhikkhu, but the Commentary itself shows that this assumption
is mistaken, for it states that if a small novice too weak to lift
a pot of rice simply slides it along the table or floor onto a bhikkhu's
hand, it is properly given.

Factor (b): If any part of the donor's body (except for
his/her extended arm) is within 1.25 meters of any part of the bhikkhu's
body (except for his extended arm), this factor is fulfilled. If
the donor is standing beyond reach, the bhikkhu should tell him/her
to come within reach before donating the food. If for some reason
the donor does not comply with the bhikkhu's request, the bhikkhu
may still accept the food, but should then take it to another unordained
person — without setting it down and picking it up again in the
meantime (see below) — and have it properly "given" before eating
it.

Although the donor must be within reach, the food itself need
not be. Thus if the donor places many vessels on a mat while the
bhikkhu touches the mat with the intention of receiving them, all
of the food is considered to be properly received as long as the
donor is within reach of the bhikkhu. The same holds true if the
donor places many vessels touching one another while the bhikkhu
touches one of the vessels with the intention of receiving them
all. (The factor of the bhikkhu's intention is discussed further
under factor (e) below.)

Factor (c) means that the donor cannot simply tell the
bhikkhu to take the food being given. Rather, he/she should make
a physical gesture of offering the food. In some places, this factor
is interpreted as meaning that the donor must assume a humble or
respectful manner while making the offering, and has led some to
believe, for instance, that a bhikkhu going barefoot on his alms
round should not accept food from a donor wearing shoes. This view
is not supported by the Commentary. Although some of the gestures
it cites as examples, such as tilting the head, might be interpreted
as showing respect, some of them are not respectful in terms of
Asian etiquette at all. For instance, a person riding on the bhikkhu's
shoulders picks a piece of fruit from a tree, drops it into his
hands, and it is considered properly given.

The question arises as to how much of a gesture is necessary
for this factor to be fulfilled. In the West, if a donor brings
a tray of food and stands in front of a bhikkhu, waiting for him
to take some of the food, the fact that he/she stands there waiting
would be considered enough of a gesture to show that the food is
being given. If the bhikkhu were to demand more of a gesture than
that, the donor would probably be offended. Since, as we have noted,
the opinions expressed in this section of the Commentary are not
necessarily normative, this is an area where one can make allowances
for cultural norms. The essence of this factor would seem to be
that a bhikkhu should not snatch food that a person happens to be
carrying past him without showing any indication that he/she wants
him to take the food.

Factor (d) is not discussed by the Commentary, although
it is probably inspired by such stories as that of elephants offering
lotus stalks to Ven. Moggallana, and of Sakka, the king of the deities,
presenting a gift of food to Maha Kassapa after the latter had withdrawn
from seven days of concentration. There is at least one bhikkhu
in Thailand today who has trained a pet monkey to "give" him things.

Factor (e): The effort involved in receiving the item
may be minimal indeed. In fact, the Commentary's discussion of the
Vibhanga quotes the Mahapaccari, one of the ancient Sinhalese commentaries,
as saying that attention is the measure determining whether or not
food has been received. Thus if a donor offers food by placing it
on a table, the bhikkhu may simply touch the table with his finger,
thinking, "I am receiving the food," and it is properly given. The
same holds true if he is sitting on the table or lying on a bed
and regards the act of sitting or lying there as one of receiving
whatever is placed there. However, immovable objects — such as a
floor, the ground, or anything fixed to the floor or ground — may
not be used as "items connected to the body" to receive food in
this way.

Food placed in a bhikkhu's hand when he is asleep or his attention
is elsewhere, e.g., in deep meditation, does not count as properly
given. He must be awake and paying enough attention to know that
the food is being given for this factor to be fulfilled. Food placed
in a bhikkhu's mouth is considered properly given if he is awake.
If he is asleep or unconscious and food is put into his stomach
via a feeding tube, he has not broken this rule for he is not the
agent putting it there, and as the Sub-commentary notes under Sanghadisesa
1, the Vinaya does not apply to a bhikkhu when he is not in a normal,
waking state of awareness.

4. Taking food that has not been given. To take food knowing
that it has been improperly given or not given at all (here we are
not talking about cases of stealing) is no offense if the bhikkhu
has no intention of eating it. If, after he has set it down, the
food is later "given" to him, he may accept and eat it with no penalty.
Here the examples given in the Commentary include such things as
picking up fallen fruit or the remains of a lion's kill with the
thought of taking them for a novice to eat, or picking up oil or
ghee with the thought of taking it to one's parents. A common example
at present would be picking up food left lying around when one is
cleaning up the monastery. The Sub-commentary states that this allowance
does not hold if one is thinking of taking the food for other bhikkhus
to eat.

To take food with the purpose of eating it, thinking that it
has been properly given when in fact it hasn't, is also no offense.
If one then learns or realizes that it has not been properly given,
one should return it — if possible, to its original place — without
setting it down and picking it up again in the meantime. Once the
food is back in its original place, one may "receive" and eat it
with no penalty. If one sets it down and picks it up again before
returning it to its original place, though, then technically one
incurs a dukkata for taking food that one realizes is not properly
given, and so one may not later formally receive the food, as mentioned
above. If for some reason there is no possibility of returning the
food to its original place, one need only return it to some other
spot in the building from which it was taken and then "receive"
and eat it without committing an offense.

To take food with the purpose of eating it, knowing that it has
not been properly given, entails a dukkata, as stated in the Vibhanga.
According to the Commentary's treatise, "taking" here also includes
deliberately touching the food or the vessel containing it with
the intention of eating it. (Touching it accidentally it carries
no penalty.) If a bhikkhu deliberately touches it in this way, he
may not then properly receive it, although other bhikkhus may. Once
they have received it, the first bhikkhu may not eat any of it.

If the first bhikkhu, instead of merely touching the food or
its vessel, actually moves it from its place, then neither he nor
any of the other bhikkhus may receive it. Thus if a donor brings
a pot of stew to the monastery, and one of the bhikkhus, curious
to see what is going to be offered that day, tilts the pot to peek
inside, none of the bhikkhus may eat the food, and the donor must
either give it to the novices and any attendants at the monastery,
if there are any, throw it to the dogs, or take it home.

Many Communities do not accept the Commentary's opinions on this
point, and with good reason: The last-mentioned penalty — even though
the offense is a dukkata — is stronger than that imposed by any
of the nissaggiya pacittiya rules, and penalizes perfectly innocent
people: the other bhikkhus and the donor of the food as well. An
alternate opinion, which many Communities follow, is that if a bhikkhu
takes — with the thought of eating it — food that he knows has not
been properly offered, he may not then formally receive it from
an unordained person, but other bhikkhus may. Once it has been properly
received, any bhikkhu — including the first — may eat from it.

This is an area in which none of the texts gives an authoritative
answer, and a wise policy is to adhere to the views of the Community
in which one is living, as long as they fit into the framework provided
by the Canon.

5. When food becomes "ungiven." The Commentary to Parajika
1, in its discussion of what to do when a bhikkhu's sex changes
spontaneously (!), lists seven instances in which an edible given
to a bhikkhu becomes "ungiven" — i.e., no bhikkhu may pick it up
and eat it until it is formally given again. The seven are —

(a) The original recipient undergoes a spontaneous sex change.
(b) He dies.
(c) He disrobes and becomes a lay person.
(d) He becomes a low person. (According to the Sub-commentary, this
means that he commits a parajika.)
(e) He gives it to an unordained person.
(f) He abandons it, having lost interest in it.
(g) The item is stolen. (The Sub-commentary, in discussing this
last point, refers solely to cases of out-and-out thievery, and
not to the mere act of touching or moving.)

Of these seven instances, the treatise we are discussing deals
with only two — (e) and (f) — in a series of examples, as follows:

A bhikkhu with rice in his hand offers it to a novice: The rice
remains "given" until the novice takes it.

A bhikkhu places food in a vessel and, no longer interested in
it, tells a novice to take it: The food is "ungiven" as soon as
he says this. This point, however, does not apply to food the bhikkhu
leaves in his own bowl or in any Community vessel from which the
bhikkhus are served or in which their food is prepared. If he leaves
food in such a vessel, he is not regarded as having abandoned interest
in it.

A bhikkhu sets his bowl on a stand and tells a novice to take
some rice from it. Assuming that the novice's hand is clean — i.e.,
not "contaminated" with any food from his own bowl that might fall
into the bhikkhu's bowl — the rice remaining in the bhikkhu's bowl
after the novice has taken his portion is still "given." Technically
speaking, the treatise says, the rice taken by the novice still
belongs to the bhikkhu until the novice puts it in his own bowl.
Thus if the novice begins to take a second handful and, being told
by the bhikkhu, "That's enough," puts the second handful back in
the bhikkhu's bowl; or if any grains of rice from the first handful
happen to fall back into the bhikkhu's bowl while the novice is
lifting it out, all the rice in the bhikkhu's bowl is still "given."

A bhikkhu holding a stick of sugar cane tells a novice to cut
off a piece from the other end: The remaining section is still "given."

A bhikkhu places pieces of hardened molasses on a tray and tells
other bhikkhus and novices to help themselves from the tray: If
the bhikkhus and novices simply pick up their portions and take
them, the remaining hardened molasses is still "given." If, though,
a novice picks up one piece, puts it down, picks up another piece,
puts it down, and so on, the hardened molasses remaining on the
tray becomes "ungiven."

The Sub-commentary explains this by saying that the novice picking
up the molasses is thinking, "This is mine. I'll take it," then
changes his mind, puts it down and then lays claim to another piece,
and so on. Thus, only the pieces that the novice claims and then
abandons in this way become "ungiven." The other pieces on the tray
still count as "given."

This last example, when taken out of context, has led to the
widespread view that food given to a bhikkhu becomes "ungiven" if
an unordained person touches or moves it. Viewed in context, though,
the example does not imply this at all. The bhikkhu has offered
the hardened molasses to the novice, and the novice in picking it
up simply completes the factors for case (e): "The bhikkhu gives
the item to an unordained person." The example of the novice taking
rice from a bhikkhu's bowl shows that even when a bhikkhu offers
food to an unordained person, the mere fact that the person touches
or moves the food does not necessarily make the food "ungiven."

Thus in cases where the bhikkhu is not giving away the food and
has not abandoned interest in it — and the unordained person is
not stealing it — there is no reason to hold that "given" food becomes
"ungiven" simply when an unordained person touches or moves it.
This is another area, though, where different Communities hold different
views, and where the wise policy is to conform to the observances
of the Community in which one is living.

These points from the Commentary's treatise may seem like a lot
of hair-splitting, but remember that the gift of food ranks with
sexual temptation as one of the largest issues in a bhikkhu's —
or anyone's — life. If questions of this sort hadn't arisen in practice,
no one would have bothered to compile the treatise in the first
place. Given the cursory manner in which the Vibhanga treats this
rule, and given the large "gray" areas surrounding the act of giving
— modern anthropology started with this subject and will probably
never finish with it — it's good to have those areas spelled out
in detail so as to minimize any disharmony that might arise in a
Community when its members find themselves in gray situations.

Still, as we have noted several times, the guidelines in the
Commentary's treatise are not binding, and the wise policy is to
follow the standards of the Community in which one is living, as
long as they fall within the framework of the Canon.

Summary:Eating food that has not been formally given
is a pacittiya offense.

About: Hinduwebsite.com provides original
and scholarly information about Hinduism and related religions, society and
culture. We promote tolerance and the highest ideals reflected in these cultures.
We have been serving the world community since 1999.
More...